Olypmus EP1. What's the point?

[Kermit power]

I've just been looking at this, and am somewhat bemused. What's the point in it?

I can set aside the fact that it's ugly as sin because that's a subjective matter and I know some people like things to look old, but other surely nobody would contemplate spending that much money on a 2x crop camera with a restricted range of lenses which costs a bloody fortune even before you start shelling out for such basics as a viewfinder and flash.

Am I missing something, or is this just some sort of gimmick to milk the gullible with too much money?

[SamHH]

It's small but with a biggish sensor and interchangeable lenses that similar sized cameras don't have.

[gingerpaul]

It's smaller. Both it and the Panasonic GF1 are hopefully small enough to fit in my (large) coat pocket and thus I am likely to actually take it with me. I'll find out for sure once my local shop have both in stock.

I've have unrestricted access to a 350D and have my G9 but 90% of the time it's the G9 I use because I can put up with its size. I just can't be bothered with the bulk of a proper SLR but would like better quality pictures than the G9 is able to provide. Up until now the only option has been the Sigma DP cameras, but they lack flexibility.

I'm looking forward to reading proper reviews of the GF1 as I think with the 40mm equivalent f/1.7 lens it will be exactly what I've been waiting for.

[Kermit power]

SamHH said:

It's small

That was what I thought until I saw a life-sized picture of one fitted with the 14-42 lens. OK, it is fairly small, but it's not that small, and once you add in the fact that if there's any chance you might be shooting in low light you need to carry an external flash as well, I can't really see it.

[SamHH]

Kermit power said:

SamHH said:

It's small

That was what I thought until I saw a life-sized picture of one fitted with the 14-42 lens. OK, it is fairly small, but it's not that small, and once you add in the fact that if there's any chance you might be shooting in low light you need to carry an external flash as well, I can't really see it.

It's smaller than other cameras with the same or similar sensor and lenses, and is more capable than many other cameras that are the same size. For some people that combination will be attractive, for others it won't. IIRC you're always saying that you don't like the bigger SLR cameras, so surely you can at least see why a smaller camera might be attractive even if you don't like that particular one.

[tybalt]

Kermit power said:

SamHH said:

It's small

That was what I thought until I saw a life-sized picture of one fitted with the 14-42 lens. OK, it is fairly small, but it's not that small, and once you add in the fact that if there's any chance you might be shooting in low light you need to carry an external flash as well, I can't really see it.

It's a GF-1 with 20mm 1.7 vs D3000 with 35mm 1.8 DX

It's quite small really (pancake prime is clearly the way to go with this IMHO).

Edited by tybalt on Saturday 26th September 20:18

[gingerpaul]

Yep, the prime lenses are the way to go. The 20mm Panasonic looks like it could be great. If you get one and only have a zoom lens on it you're missing the point in my opinion. The lack of a view finder as standard means that, for example, shooting aircraft at an air show with a long zoom would be hard work anyway. It's likely to be quite hard to hold the camera far enough from your body to see the screen and still keep the subject sharp. However, with the prime they're only a bit larger than a big compact.

[RobDickinson]

EP1 is a nice idea and probably good for someone who has a 43rds system already.

But its a bit on the fence, not a P&S and not good as one, not a dSLR and not good as one.

If it'd have the rangefinder/optical hell even an EVF I think I'd be more keen.

[Kermit power]

SamHH said:

Kermit power said:

SamHH said:

It's small

That was what I thought until I saw a life-sized picture of one fitted with the 14-42 lens. OK, it is fairly small, but it's not that small, and once you add in the fact that if there's any chance you might be shooting in low light you need to carry an external flash as well, I can't really see it.

It's smaller than other cameras with the same or similar sensor and lenses, and is more capable than many other cameras that are the same size. For some people that combination will be attractive, for others it won't. IIRC you're always saying that you don't like the bigger SLR cameras, so surely you can at least see why a smaller camera might be attractive even if you don't like that particular one.

You're absolutely right that I prefer the 450D to the larger DSLRs, but I'm not sure they're comparable?

You could take something like a 450D with an 18-200 lens with built in flash and viewfinder and cover pretty much any eventuality with a relatively small compromise in image quality. Would an EP1 plus lenses to cover that range, a 4/3rds to micro 4/3rds converter, the external viewfinder and an external flash really be any smaller?

Of course, if you're happy to take shots in ambient light using live view and a single prime lens then it's going to be much smaller, but also rather frustrating, I'd have thought?

[gingerpaul]

You can put an EVF on the GF1. It clips on the hot shoe mount. I can't see how a screen so small could have the resolution to be useful for manual focusing though. Still, at least it's available.

[Simpo Two]

Poor man's Leica?

[SamHH]

Kermit power said:

Of course, if you're happy to take shots in ambient light using live view and a single prime lens then it's going to be much smaller, but also rather frustrating, I'd have thought?

For you, obviously. For everyone, no.

[tybalt]

Kermit power said:

Of course, if you're happy to take shots in ambient light using live view and a single prime lens then it's going to be much smaller, but also rather frustrating, I'd have thought?

I prefer taking photos with a fast prime in ambient light. And as for live view - I don't think most people will find it all that hard to get used to - that's how people use compacts anyway. Shame they couldn't get the external VF up to the standards of the GH-1.

[Kermit power]

tybalt said:

Kermit power said:

Of course, if you're happy to take shots in ambient light using live view and a single prime lens then it's going to be much smaller, but also rather frustrating, I'd have thought?

I prefer taking photos with a fast prime in ambient light. And as for live view - I don't think most people will find it all that hard to get used to - that's how people use compacts anyway. Shame they couldn't get the external VF up to the standards of the GH-1.

I love my 50mm f1.8 prime in ambient light too. It's just a shame that the Micro 4/3rds range doesn't seem to have a fast prime. A maximum aperture of f2.8 on a prime isn't exactly fast, is it? If you want a properly fast prime lens for it, then you need to use a 4/3rds lens like the Sigma 30mm f1.4, which is 25% longer than the Canon 50mm f1.4, and that's before you add on the 4/3rds to micro 4/3rds converter.

As for the live view, the reviews I've read suggest that it's fine until you're in bright light, at which point it starts to become an issue.

I can sort of see the theory for this camera - as Sam said, I prefer a smaller body anyway - but I think the reality is completely flawed, and the price would've been ludicrous even if the execution lived up to the theory.

[tybalt]

Kermit power said:

I love my 50mm f1.8 prime in ambient light too. It's just a shame that the Micro 4/3rds range doesn't seem to have a fast prime. A maximum aperture of f2.8 on a prime isn't exactly fast, is it? If you want a properly fast prime lens for it, then you need to use a 4/3rds lens like the Sigma 30mm f1.4, which is 25% longer than the Canon 50mm f1.4, and that's before you add on the 4/3rds to micro 4/3rds converter.

As for the live view, the reviews I've read suggest that it's fine until you're in bright light, at which point it starts to become an issue.

I can sort of see the theory for this camera - as Sam said, I prefer a smaller body anyway - but I think the reality is completely flawed, and the price would've been ludicrous even if the execution lived up to the theory.

Didn't you read what I wrote above? There is a 20mm f1.7 lense, available as a kit. That's a normal fast prime. On the price: they are far to expensive for me at the moment, but so were DSLRs when they came out. I bought mine (D40) at £230 with kit lense around two years ago. How much was the first DSLR? There are plenty of early adopters with deep pockets.

The lack of optical VF is a slight drawback, but what do people do these days when you hand them an SLR to take a picture with? In my experience 95% hold it at arms length and say "how do you turn on the screen then?" Composing pictures this way works fine - haven't you ever used a compact?

[Kermit power]

tybalt said:

Didn't you read what I wrote above? There is a 20mm f1.7 lense, available as a kit. That's a normal fast prime.

Yes, I did read what you wrote. Then I went and read what the Olympus website wrote. Then what the Micro 4/3rds website wrote. None of these make any mention of a 20mm lens of any speed for some reason? I have just found a Panasonic one, but I don't imagine that would be available as a kit on the Olympus camera? It's also £300 on Warehouse Express, so the system gets yet more stupidly expensive.

tybalt said:

The lack of optical VF is a slight drawback, but what do people do these days when you hand them an SLR to take a picture with? In my experience 95% hold it at arms length and say "how do you turn on the screen then?" Composing pictures this way works fine - haven't you ever used a compact?

Yes, I have used a compact. I don't particularly like it at the best of times, but it's a bloody nightmare if the sun is shining on the screen.

[gingerpaul]

Kermit power said:

I love my 50mm f1.8 prime in ambient light too. It's just a shame that the Micro 4/3rds range doesn't seem to have a fast prime.

Apart from the 40mm equivalent f/1.7 lens I mentioned above, no.

Kermit power said:

As for the live view, the reviews I've read suggest that it's fine until you're in bright light, at which point it starts to become an issue.

This is certainly true. I can see this being a problem on a clear day when taking pictures when I'm skiing for example. The G9 has an optical viewfinder so didn't have this problem. This is probably the biggest flaw in my opinion.

Kermit power said:

I can sort of see the theory for this camera - as Sam said, I prefer a smaller body anyway - but I think the reality is completely flawed, and the price would've been ludicrous even if the execution lived up to the theory.

How hasn't the execution lived up to the theory? All the theory is as far as I can tell is offering a decent sensor in a compact body. Of course there will need to be compromises, such as the lack of an optical viewfinder, but I think as a first iteration the camera manufacturers have come up with a couple of interesting options.

As for price, some people are happy to pay more for a gadget with similar features to another gadget if it's smaller. I can't see how this is any different.

[tybalt]

Kermit power said:

Yes, I have used a compact. I don't particularly like it at the best of times, but it's a bloody nightmare if the sun is shining on the screen.

Yeah - well it's horses for courses. Screen can be lots better for macro work for example, or trying to get elevated angles and shots from near the ground. I think they've done a bloody good job of something that camera enthusiasts have been clamoring for for a long time.

It's not just a compact with a decent sensor. The Panasonic version is actually about as responsive (shutter lag and focus) as an entry level DSLR (assuming it's the same as the G1/GH1), and you can change lenses too.

I'd call it progress, and there's plenty more to had.

BTW - the EP1 does seem fatally flawed by poor AF performance (which is especially crap in low light). I wouldn't consider it for that reason - I hate cameras that can't lock focus in low light. My MF skills are just not good enough for kids.

Edited by tybalt on Sunday 27th September 00:40

[Kermit power]

tybalt said:

Yeah - well it's horses for courses. Screen can be lots better for macro work for example

I think they can be for static subjects where you can mount the camera on a tripod, but then again that also rather defeats the portability argument!

I've tried using the live view on my 450D for Macro work, and it's great in the above scenario, but just wobbles far too much, compared to using the viewfinder, to use it handheld on insects and other mobile subjects.

Of course, it may well be my technique using the screen that's to blame, but I do get some pretty acceptable shots through the viewfinder.

[tybalt]

Kermit power said:

tybalt said:

Yeah - well it's horses for courses. Screen can be lots better for macro work for example

I think they can be for static subjects where you can mount the camera on a tripod, but then again that also rather defeats the portability argument!

I've tried using the live view on my 450D for Macro work, and it's great in the above scenario, but just wobbles far too much, compared to using the viewfinder, to use it handheld on insects and other mobile subjects.

Of course, it may well be my technique using the screen that's to blame, but I do get some pretty acceptable shots through the viewfinder.

It's only any use with a tripod - use our one at work to take pictures of titchy things that we make.